Here is an idea i came up with not to long ago...
This is for me i new way of trying to solve the perpetual motion. When a weight drops from the top of a wheel to the bottom it gains energy, then shoots back up nearly making it to the top but falling short of it... why not use two weights that drop together from the top of the wheel to the bottom, one weight used to harness the energy from the drop which then passes that energy to the second weight without effecting the momentum of both weights.
There is a way to let a weight drop to the bottom of a wheel and use the full energy of that drop with an impact or some other various way without the weight even slowing down and still making it just sort of its original position, so when you put the second weight into the equation, they both drop and the impact from the 1st weight causes the second weight to fly up into the axle (which is only half the distance it dropped) then back up to the rim to join the 1st weight either by CF or using weight 1, the energy would ever increase on each revolution if it worked...
It is in my opinion that the reason weights have to go in and out of the axle is not in order just to keep the wheel turning but rather to allow the descending weight/s to gather that energy from the drop. So by making a wheel that turns just purely by weights that take different position will result in a non runner even tough it appears logical. Also in my opinion all the work must be done by the weights without putting any load on the wheel, like the movement of the weights must not effect the free and easy turn of the wheel. If you look at Leonardo Da Vinci's wheel and many many others you will notice that they all design the wheels to power themselves by using the descending weights to lift the ascending weights, in fact its hard to explain this subtle difference but they produce largely different results, the weights in my opion need to influence each other, the out of balance positions are making it easier for the weights to drop but that alone isn't enough ... I would be happy to discuss this theory of mine with anyone who is interested either on here or better still by email...
Alex
is this what you are talking about?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Iwt84dopM&feature=related
It is the opposite of that, read what i wrote
Alex
@Alexioco,
You have to explain it more clearly. Give a schematic or something.
Ok let me put it simply
A weight falls from the top of a wheel, it gains speed and at the 6 o clock position the energy gained from the drop is used without effecting the weights momentum.
So, at six o'clock the weight has 1/2mv^2 kinetic energy and momentum equal to mv, right? Now, explain how "the energy gained from the drop is used without effecting the weights momentum".
Greetings Alex
Yes a falling weight is great only if it can be reset. The reset is always the problem it seems. For some reason it gives me visions of even stranger wheel designs.
Talk to you later.
Alan
Yeah so the weight drops, gains speed (energy) then when it reaches the 6 o clock position all of that energy is used without effecting the weights momentum allowing it to fly back up to the top falling just short of a full revolution... Questions is how do you extract the energy from the drop with effecting the weights momentum? and what do you do with that extracted energy?
To extract the energy without loosing momentum is easier than you might think, i want people to have an attempt at some designs how might might do it, it isn't that hard to be honest so... Anyway the following is what you do with that energy once extracted:
You place a second weight right next to the first weight (the one that falls producing the energy) and that energy extracted at the 6 o clock position causes the second weight to fly up into the axle meaning that the first weight will make it right back up to the top of the wheel and over again, as for the second weight, it joins the first weight at the top of the wheel at 12 o clock with the help of the first weight and CF, its only a theory and i have a design but i'm still in early stages of thought and design thats why i havnt posted anything yet, im going to post a picture with an explanation but just for now please try some designs of how you think a single falling weight and pass its energy to another weight with it loosing momentum...
Alex
P.S What frustrates me is every time I/someone makes a valuable discovery and post it on here, it goes straight onto the list of those who don't share ideas and they make progress gained from their own experience plus others without sharing anything that could lead others to a possible runner. This is what kind of puts me off giving all the details away, i'm sure that if people on here posted their best ideas and combined them in simple ways you would get some interesting results...
Greetings Alex
The idea has merit to a point. the biggest question is how to control it for use. I have been very busy but I will take a closer look when I get back from MS. The trip has been delayed for 2 extra days and I have to go.
Alan
Quote from: AB Hammer on March 16, 2010, 08:58:32 PM
Greetings Alex
The idea has merit to a point. the biggest question is how to control it for use. I have been very busy but I will take a closer look when I get back from MS. The trip has been delayed for 2 extra days and I have to go.
Alan
Hey Alan to control it for use is pretty simple if you're thinking long the same lines as i am, the question would it work?
If two weights drop together from the top of the wheel, they are both capable of taking themselves up into the axle at the same time but then the problem lies in the fact that they both cannot make it back to the starting position, only one of them can, so what i have designed is when the two weights fall together from the top one of the weights causes the other weight to fly up to the axle at 6 o clock (the energy to do it is gained from the fall with effecting the momentum) the outside weight continues on through its momentum towards the top of the wheel (12 o clock) then it lifts the second weight back up again then the cycle repeats, but here lies the problem, will there be enough energy to do it? Will the outside weight plus CF help to lift the second weight to meet the 1st weight? If not, then the second weight needs to be made just light enough to make the lift easier, plus the help of a spring could be added, there are quite a lot of things you can do, what do any of you members think?
Alex
Alex
I just got off of a 12 hour road trip and I am tired. I will get back with this, when I get fully rested.
Alan
Oki dokie
OK Alex
Lets look at all the possibilities of a falling weight. How can we get more out of it than just a stagnant fall? This is what to start looking at. Chain reactions and leaver movements.
Alan
Quote from: AB Hammer on March 25, 2010, 08:23:39 PM
OK Alex
Lets look at all the possibilities of a falling weight. How can we get more out of it than just a stagnant fall? This is what to start looking at. Chain reactions and leaver movements.
Alan
Well what i have designed is two weights falls, the energy that one of the weights have gained is used to cause the second weight to fly up into the axle with effecting the momentum, the lever is used...
P.S ill learn about Chain reactions and leaver movements.
Alex
Hi Alex: What about the rotation of your wheel, lets say its 12 ft. dia and turning at 26 rpm, even a weight in free fall cant keep with that kind of rim speed, by the time the weight drops, the bottom of the wheel is now over at 9 or 10, just my 2 cents!!
@Dr:
3.65m wheel > rim length : 11.46m > half rim = 5.73m
26rpm > 2.3s per rotation > 1.15s per half rotation
g = 9.8m/s²
Vertical drop in first second : 4.9m
x = 1/2 g*t²
t² = 1.33
x = 6.48m
Very rough quick uneducated calcs of course, but the falling weight does catch up I think.
Quote from: Dr on June 09, 2010, 10:53:43 PM
Hi Alex: What about the rotation of your wheel, lets say its 12 ft. dia and turning at 26 rpm, even a weight in free fall cant keep with that kind of rim speed, by the time the weight drops, the bottom of the wheel is now over at 9 or 10, just my 2 cents!!
The weights accelerate the wheel, the wheel does not accelrate the weights.
Alex
I am now visualizing hammer slung as clock dials.
They fall parallel, yet the one will at 6:00 hit a lever (with leverage) pressing onto the other hammer close to the axle, causing it to transfer nergy to it. The donor weight loses momentum, but might still make it up a it. A one-way clutch could keep it in place, or it could swing back at a reduced hammer hold length, to reach 6:00 alongside the other weight again, and the roles are reversed.
I am failing to see the gain aspect though.
I have not been able to get the idea out of my mind that the gain must come from non-lineair fomulae governing the movements of the weights. Weight need to save time, or exploit a second or third power component of a formula.
@ Cloxxie & Alex: My point being that a free falling weight will NEVER hit at 6 O clock unless your wheel is standing still! :)
Here is the design
Forget about it perpetuating for the moment, this is how i'm trying to cause 1 of the weights to fly up to the axle at 6 o clock.
Both weights fall clockwise from the top to the bottom. At 6 o clock the outer weight swings hitting the rim out pulling the inner weight up into the axle, they are both the same weight, the weight travels up to the axle faster and further than the outer weight. The energy to do this is gained from the drop. This then allows the outer weight to make to up and over at the top at 12 o clock, the then re tune the weights, a spring is needed which i omitted for now as i want to discuss the bottom part...
Alex
Actually what you seem to be referring to is how i always thought bessler had done it, a split system is the only purely mechanical system i thought was viable, mine may be more easily explained, whilst the direstions/ information available on the bessler wheel seem to have a million interpretations, i believe he may simply have split this system more than once like more arms on a mag grav drive.
Bear with me and i will try to make a simple picture in your head as to the mechanics, two weights, one set half way up in the centre of the wheel, the second weight at 1 minute past twelve on the outer side of the wheel, the weight at the top falls, by the time it reach 3.30 o'clock the centre weight is lifted to the top equal weight for equal weight plus weight for the wheel, the remaining fall and velocity equal to half a lift takes the outer weight back through to the centre only. Now i believe the main mistake is that everyone builds a bessler wheel believing they need to interact with the entire outer of both sides of the wheel this is not true, overbalance is one side only, the second mistake is that everyone who tries a centre rise and right side drop, uses a vertical oval style chain loop instead of a wheel, which alters and removes the momentum gain from a circular wheel